Vampire Questions

[Cabral]

Is that from the 3.5 or 3.0 FAQ? Since the part about monk attacks being manufactured or natural is new in 3.5.

It's from the Energy Drain description:

Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels.

 

[Thanee]

I meant this part...

Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The slam attack would be with a fist, or not? Then you cannot mix it with a two-handed weapon attack.

Depends. A slam attack is defined as "batter[ing] opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.."

I see no particular reason to limit it to fists and arms.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Thanee, it's in the newest version of the FAQ, page 7, 2nd column, about halfway down.

 

[Alzrius]

No it doesn't. It is an effect that targets the target of the unarmed strike which is triggered by the hitting with a natural weapon.

In other words, that it's an "effect" that is "improving" the damage of the "natural weapon".

The language of the Unarmed Strike ability is so that monks can use either Magic Weapon or Magic Fang.

If that were true, it would ay that. Instead it says "spells and effects" and this is an effect.

No. It says it can be treated as a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for spells and effects that improve one or the other. In no other way is it to be treated as a natural weapon. If a spell negatively affects a target's natural weapons, it does not work on a monk's unarmed strike. The unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. It can be enhanced as if it were one, that's it.

If the effect improves the damage of the unarmed strike by adding in an additional effect (there's that word again), then it does fall under the rule of treating the monk's unarmed strikes as natural weapons.

The list lists the most common. If the unarmed strike was intended to be a natural weapon, the simplest thing would be to call it a slam. The class feature explicitly calls out its ability to be enhanced by either Magic Weapon or Magic Fang (Although if you play eberron, a question of whether or not Artificer infusions work on non-construct monks )

No, it calls out "such as" magic fang and magic weapon spells. The fact that it says "such as" clearly indicates that they are not the only things that apply.

Sorry, it just doesn't work.

Sorry, it just does.

The language is very precise and does not allow for it.

The language is not at all precise, and does allow for it.

By contrast, if the Energy Drain was an effect that charged a natural weapon with negative energy, then it would work.

It wouldn't need to say that, since it works now. Saying something is "charged" with negative energy is a flavor text description.

Instead, it inflicts 2 negative levels on a creature struck by the Vampire's natural weapons and Unarmed Strikes are not natural weapons.

They are when the vampire has the monk Unarmed Strike class feature.

This may be intuitively/conceptual wrong, but as far as the rules language is concerned, it is correct.

As far as the rules go, using energy drain with a vampire monk's unarmed strike is correct.

As a side note, natural weapons are not monk weapons and cannot flurry with natural weapons.

Also note:

If a monk's unarmed strike was a natural weapon, he'd get one attack per round.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cabral]

In other words, that it's an "effect" that is "improving" the damage of the "natural weapon".

No.

In other words, it is an effect that can only target someone hit by your natural weapons. Hence, that clause of unarmed strike does not apply. If you want a house rule to allow it, just write into the vampire's energy drain that an unarmed strike qualifies.

If that were true, it would ay that. Instead it says "spells and effects" and this is an effect.

It is true. It says that so they don't have to write a clause into every spell affecting manufactured weapons and natural weapons as to how it applies to monk unarmed strikes.

For example, in Eberron, let's make a Warforged Monk. Because the Warforged is a construct, an artificer can cast his infusions directly on the Warforged and avoids a little bit of confusion. The artificer cast Magic Weapon to make the unarmed strikes +1 weapons, and/or cast Weapon Augmentation to give it a special property such as Flaming.

Because of the open-ended wording of the Monk's unarmed strike description, Weapon Augmentation does not need any special wording to allow it to function on an unarmed strike.

Whether it would work on an Elf's unarmed strike is another question, but that has to do with the nature of Artificer Infusions, not the nature of a monk's unarmed strike.

If the effect improves the damage of the unarmed strike by adding in an additional effect (there's that word again), then it does fall under the rule of treating the monk's unarmed strikes as natural weapons.

No. It does not. You are twisting the wording. Since it does not require you declare the usage behorehand, you cannot tie the effect to the natural attack.

It's equivelant to a spell have the entry: "Target: One creature hit by a natural attack this round"

If, for example, it said "Once per round, a vampire may charge it's slam (or any other natural weapon it possesses) with negative energy bestowing 2 negative levels on a creature it hits. A vampire must declare this usage before rolling and a failed attack roll ruins the attempt." Then it would work since that is equivelent to "Target: One natural weapon"

No, it calls out "such as" magic fang and magic weapon spells. The fact that it says "such as" clearly indicates that they are not the only things that apply.

Right. See above.

<SNiP>
The language is not at all precise, and does allow for it.

The language is perfectly precise and does not allow for it. You may be having difficulty with the fact that the unarmed strike is attached to the monk's body and thus should be considered a natural weapon. However, Natural Weapon has specific meaning in D&D that is seperate from the concept of a natural weapon. A monk's unarmed strike can be enhanced as if it was a natural weapon, but it is not one and cannot trigger the Energy Drain.

It wouldn't need to say that, since it works now. Saying something is "charged" with negative energy is a flavor text description.

No it is not just a flavor text description.

Saying something is "charged" changes the target of the effect. If something damages a creature hit by natural weapons, the target is the creature. If something charges a natural weapon to deal extra damage, it instead targets the natural weapon. Flavor-wise they are very similar, if not identical. The difference is mechanics.

Saying that charge is composed of negative energy defines what resistances applies as well as what creatures are immune or affected differently by it. (Constructs and Undead)

They are when the vampire has the monk Unarmed Strike class feature.

As far as the rules go, using energy drain with a vampire monk's unarmed strike is correct.

Nowhere does the monk class feature state that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. They are not. The Monk class feature does not change this. The Improved Unarmed Strike feat does not change this. It simply does not work as you claim.

Since you missed or ignored this, I'll reiterate.

As a side note, natural weapons are not monk weapons and cannot flurry with natural weapons.

If a monk's unarmed strike was a natural weapon, he'd get one attack per round.

While you can pick and choose which rules you obey and which you ignore in your campaign, you cannot do so in a rules debate¹. A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. The Vampire's Energy Drain requires the vapire to hit a potential target with a natural weapon first. Therefore, the Energy Drain does not work with a monk's unarmed strike as written.

I do not think it would be overpowering to do so. In fact, if it had come up in a campaign, I would have probably run it with the unarmed strike. That does not change that, as the two mechanics are currently written, you cannot combine them.

¹ by Rules Debate, I mean a discussion in which the goal is to determine what the rules say, or what they should say. This is not an attempt at saying that you can only discuss rules in D&D Rules and everything else belongs in House Rules.

 

[Sidekick]

You say Tom-ato I say Tomayto - Lets call the whole thing off

Hey guys. Thanks for this rules discussion, you all helped me decide what my interpretation of the rules is going to be - a vampire Monk can use their slam attack as an unarmed attack, and thus as one of their flurry'ied attacks.

hmmmm energy drain, appendage battering goodness. Thats undeadliscious [smutiness intended]

I also think its fair to say that Patryn & Cabral aren't going to see eye to eye with Alzrius on this subject. You all have convincing arguments for both sides and well, thats the way it should be. D&D is amiguous, there will always be different opinions on rules - that doens't make then house rules it just means differend DMs interpret rules differently.

I suggest all concerned handle tha jandle adn then continue on with the debate - mainly 'cause I'm enjoying all the rules pull-outs.

As an aside, if a wizard monk can cast shocking grasp and then has a % chance that it discharges when the unarmed strike someone. should energy slams be treated the same - is there rules room for that sort of thing?

Just a thought...

--------------
Anyway, I'm about to run Whispers of the Vampires' blade, and while the main protagonist isn't a monk, this energy slam attack discussion has proved useful.

 

[Thanee]

Thanee, it's in the newest version of the FAQ, page 7, 2nd column, about halfway down.

Thanks! Then the official position on the topic is pretty clear.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hey guys. Thanks for this rules discussion, you all helped me decide what my interpretation of the rules is going to be - a vampire Monk can use their slam attack as an unarmed attack, and thus as one of their flurry'ied attacks.

Well, to each his own, but I think that's a bad way to do it. I think it will cause you problems, especially later on, should you ever run into a monk creature with more than one natural weapon (c.f. the various "Thri-kreen monks are t3h broken!" threads).

It also breaks the rule that you can't get multiple attacks per round with a natural weapon based on BAB. If a well-trained vampire monk can slam you multiple times per round, why can't a well-trained vampire warrior?

As an aside, if a wizard monk can cast shocking grasp and then has a % chance that it discharges when the unarmed strike someone. should energy slams be treated the same - is there rules room for that sort of thing?

A wizard / monk can pull that off because the rules specifically allow for it - see the "Touch Spells in Combat" section of the rules.

 

[Alzrius]

I also think its fair to say that Patryn & Cabral aren't going to see eye to eye with Alzrius on this subject. You all have convincing arguments for both sides and well, thats the way it should be.

Aww, no fair calling the debate off when I had Cabral in the crushing grip of reason.